Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
Your principle has nothing to do with harm, it's self-imposed moralistic righteousness. I doubt you are that altruistic, simply by your insistence that you are a better person than me because of one fault.
|
Would you mind quoting where I said I was a better person than you? I'm afraid you're attributing viewpoints to me that I have never endorsed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
No, [imposing moral judgment on others] is NOT essential. Moral values are subjective. Do you engage in premarital sex? Do you masturbate at all? Gay? Ever buy a porn magazine? Good, we may now put you up for scrutiny. Ever hear the quote, let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Sin, morals, whatever you want to call it, are only essential to the one that lives with them, not the observers.
|
The natural result of your statements above, it would seem, is that imperfect people are not able to judge the goodness or badness of the actions of others. Why would this be so?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
Of course we criminalize murder and rape, et al; they're acts of purposeful violence against another human being. And if I go up to you and blow smoke in your face on purpose, you have the right to charge me with assault. A stable society is one without violence. But it is also one without forceful limitations.
|
If you know smoking is harmful to yourself and to those around you, how are you not purposefully harming human beings?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
Taxation has NOTHING to do with moral principles. There's nothing moral about it, it's a method of spreading the costs of running a government in a (supposedly) fair distribution of income and expenditure, nothing more. If morals were attached to taxes, there'd be no poor or homeless and the most wealthy would not be so wealthy.
|
I take it you're not a socialist?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
And, unless you own a black robe and sit behind a very high desk, you do not have the right to pass judgment on another based solely on a singular action and when that person is otherwise an unknown.
In the nicest way possible, I will ask: who the hell do YOU think you are that you can sit there and point fingers?
In that line of thinking, fundamentalist christian righters would be making all sorts of strides in lawmaking. It is NOT vitally important to make judgments. It IS vitally important that you do what you can to not infringe on others' rights. Apparently, you feel differently.
|
Who am I? I'm a person who understands the difference between right and wrong and isn't afraid to let it be known. So are you, incidentally.
I have
colored the places in your post where you are imposing your moral principles on me. You say, among other things, that taxation would be fairer if it were more progressive, that sinners cannot accuse others of sin, that purposeful acts of violence against human beings is wrong, that there is such a thing as fair distribution of income, and that it is vitally important that I not infringe on the rights of others.
The difference between us, then, is that, although we both confidently impose our different moral beliefs on others, I do so consciously and you do not. That, and you're getting quite upset about my audacious viewpoint. Need I color the unnecessary ad hominem comments as well?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
So what do you do with those of us with the sincere and fervent moral belief that self-righteousness and being judgemental is inherantly immoral?
|
I suppose I would indicate the inherently contradictory nature of that position and use the lesson to show you that even someone who believes they abhor moral judgments actually makes them with confidence.